View Single Post
Old 08-03-2012, 12:24 PM   #11
Stevie G
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London,England
Posts: 9,199
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Michael Spinks or Billy Conn, who ranks higher pound-for-pound?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lufcrazy View Post
Has to be Conn for me.

He lost in arguably the best losing performance ever to Louis. whilst a loss is still a loss, the point is he proved his class.

Louis aside, he beat everyone he faced whilst prime:

HW - Pastor,McCoy, Savold, Barlund - Louis (L).
LHW - Lesnevich (x2), Apostoli (x2), Zale, Yarosz, Krieger (x2), Bettina (x2), Dorazio, Actis - Yarosz (L).
MW: Corbett III, Zivic, Yarosz, Dundee, Movan (x2), Risko, Rankins, Seelig - Corbett III (L), Krieger (L).

that is a great resume spanning 3 divisions, he also spent 2 years as the best LHW in the world.

Spinks on the other hand spent 3 years as the best LHW in the world and just over half a year as the best HW

HW: Holmes, Cooney - Holmes (L*), Tyson (L).
LHW: Qawi, M Johnson, Muhammad, Lopez, Sutherland (x2), Sears, MacDonald, E Davis, J Davis, Wasajia.


When I began this post I was quite resolute. Now I'm not so sure.

I think it's clear that Conn has a better resume. I think it's also clear that spinks achieved more.

I think Conn is a greater LHW on the strength of his resume being better but Spinks is the greater HW on the strength of actually beating a legit HW ATG.

I think conn's run as a MW contender might be enough to tip the balance here, but again I'm not so sure.

the more I think about it, the harder the decision is.

My instinct says Conn, but I'm not overly sure it's a position I could vehemently defend.

Spinks was one of the best ever Light-Heavies of all. At heavyweight though,he may have been the linear champ for nearly three years,but I don't think he was ever the BEST heavyweight. Conn was a great light heavy who could give heavies a battle. Like yourself,I say Conn but only just.
Stevie G is offline  Top
Reply With Quote